Alterationists: Thoughts from Gary Mack.

[Craig Lamson]

However...it is UNKNOWN whether in the B&H camera Lamson's demonstration would be a factor.

Jack

Jack, it MUST be a factor. Sharpening and changes in the width of the vignette as the F-Stop decreases in size is a basic photographic fact, it is not subject to speculation. That the vignette will change on B&H wth changes in F-Stop is a given. A comparison of images taken at two different setting is meaningless.

[Todd W. Vaughan]

I would like to point out that the testimony of one of the officers (Hargis, I think) said

that HE PULLED OUT OF THE PROCESSION IMMEDIATELY AND MADE A U-TURN ON

ELM STREET, AND PARKED HIS BIKE BY THE SOUTH CURB NEAR MOORMAN AND HILL,

THEN RAN ACROSS THE STREET TO THE KNOLL, CAME BACK AND MADE ANOTHER

U-TURN AND THEN REJOINED THE MOTORCADE.

My question for the obstructionists: Can you point me to any film which shows this?

Also, other witnesses said AN OFFICER RAN HIS MOTORCYCLE UP THE HILL AND

THREW HIS BIKE DOWN TO LOOK OVER THE FENCE.

Can anyone point me to any films which show this?

Jack

Oy Vey, Jack. Hargis and his bike are shown in the Bell film, here:

He pulled his bike to the side. Later in the film you can see Haygood's bike on the opposite side. The Couch film also shows Haygood's bike. He left it at the base of the hill. Are you now claiming the Couch film, shown on TV within hours of the assassination, is a fake? If so, is there any assassination film you know of that is, in your opinion, not a fake?

According to what I read (and was told by Mary Ferrell), he circled around in the street.

I do not believe what is shown in ANY DP FILM. They have all had things removed and/or added.

Jack

So which is it, Jack, a "U turn" or "circling around in the street? The two are not the same.

Anyway, the ONLY reference I'm aware of for either is for an officer "circling around in the street", and that comes from Jean Hill's book - but she's not talking about Hargis, she's talking about Martin (Hargis's partner and the cop she was cheating on her husband with , who she was there to see, and whom she gives a ficticious name in her book), but the films and photos show that Martin never did that either.

Films and photos show? You gotta be kidding!

Jack

So tell me Jack, do you think the Paschall, Bell and Daniel films are altered?

The multiple alterations to DP films have never been adequately catalogued. In most, the alterations

just excised relevant frames. Some, like Zapruder, Nix, Muchmore and several others underwent

extensive alteration.

And just think, Dan Rather said he was on the west side of the underpass waiting for a "film drop".

Do you believe Rather or the Daniel film?

;-)

Jack

I don’t know where Dan Rather was, but I certainly don’t think the Daniel film proves he wasn’t where he said he was, as you seem to think

And since you seem so willing to accept the Daniel film when it comes to Dan Rather, why are you so unwilling to accept the Daniel film when I point out that it disproves Jean Hills claim about Martin not leaving Dealey Plaza right away and instead doing circles in the middle of Elm Street? That’s a contradiction.

[Jack White]

I would like to point out that the testimony of one of the officers (Hargis, I think) said

that HE PULLED OUT OF THE PROCESSION IMMEDIATELY AND MADE A U-TURN ON

ELM STREET, AND PARKED HIS BIKE BY THE SOUTH CURB NEAR MOORMAN AND HILL,

THEN RAN ACROSS THE STREET TO THE KNOLL, CAME BACK AND MADE ANOTHER

U-TURN AND THEN REJOINED THE MOTORCADE.

My question for the obstructionists: Can you point me to any film which shows this?

Also, other witnesses said AN OFFICER RAN HIS MOTORCYCLE UP THE HILL AND

THREW HIS BIKE DOWN TO LOOK OVER THE FENCE.

Can anyone point me to any films which show this?

Jack

Oy Vey, Jack. Hargis and his bike are shown in the Bell film, here:

He pulled his bike to the side. Later in the film you can see Haygood's bike on the opposite side. The Couch film also shows Haygood's bike. He left it at the base of the hill. Are you now claiming the Couch film, shown on TV within hours of the assassination, is a fake? If so, is there any assassination film you know of that is, in your opinion, not a fake?

According to what I read (and was told by Mary Ferrell), he circled around in the street.

I do not believe what is shown in ANY DP FILM. They have all had things removed and/or added.

Jack

So which is it, Jack, a "U turn" or "circling around in the street? The two are not the same.

Anyway, the ONLY reference I'm aware of for either is for an officer "circling around in the street", and that comes from Jean Hill's book - but she's not talking about Hargis, she's talking about Martin (Hargis's partner and the cop she was cheating on her husband with , who she was there to see, and whom she gives a ficticious name in her book), but the films and photos show that Martin never did that either.

Films and photos show? You gotta be kidding!

Jack

So tell me Jack, do you think the Paschall, Bell and Daniel films are altered?

The multiple alterations to DP films have never been adequately catalogued. In most, the alterations

just excised relevant frames. Some, like Zapruder, Nix, Muchmore and several others underwent

extensive alteration.

And just think, Dan Rather said he was on the west side of the underpass waiting for a "film drop".

Do you believe Rather or the Daniel film?

;-)

Jack

I don’t know where Dan Rather was, but I certainly don’t think the Daniel film proves he wasn’t where he said he was, as you seem to think

And since you seem so willing to accept the Daniel film when it comes to Dan Rather, why are you so unwilling to accept the Daniel film when I point out that it disproves Jean Hills claim about Martin not leaving Dealey Plaza right away and instead doing circles in the middle of Elm Street? That’s a contradiction.

There is no need for you to tell me WHAT I THINK.

Jack

[Todd W. Vaughan]

I would like to point out that the testimony of one of the officers (Hargis, I think) said

that HE PULLED OUT OF THE PROCESSION IMMEDIATELY AND MADE A U-TURN ON

ELM STREET, AND PARKED HIS BIKE BY THE SOUTH CURB NEAR MOORMAN AND HILL,

THEN RAN ACROSS THE STREET TO THE KNOLL, CAME BACK AND MADE ANOTHER

U-TURN AND THEN REJOINED THE MOTORCADE.

My question for the obstructionists: Can you point me to any film which shows this?

Also, other witnesses said AN OFFICER RAN HIS MOTORCYCLE UP THE HILL AND

THREW HIS BIKE DOWN TO LOOK OVER THE FENCE.

Can anyone point me to any films which show this?

Jack

Oy Vey, Jack. Hargis and his bike are shown in the Bell film, here:

He pulled his bike to the side. Later in the film you can see Haygood's bike on the opposite side. The Couch film also shows Haygood's bike. He left it at the base of the hill. Are you now claiming the Couch film, shown on TV within hours of the assassination, is a fake? If so, is there any assassination film you know of that is, in your opinion, not a fake?

According to what I read (and was told by Mary Ferrell), he circled around in the street.

I do not believe what is shown in ANY DP FILM. They have all had things removed and/or added.

Jack

So which is it, Jack, a "U turn" or "circling around in the street? The two are not the same.

Anyway, the ONLY reference I'm aware of for either is for an officer "circling around in the street", and that comes from Jean Hill's book - but she's not talking about Hargis, she's talking about Martin (Hargis's partner and the cop she was cheating on her husband with , who she was there to see, and whom she gives a ficticious name in her book), but the films and photos show that Martin never did that either.

Films and photos show? You gotta be kidding!

Jack

So tell me Jack, do you think the Paschall, Bell and Daniel films are altered?

The multiple alterations to DP films have never been adequately catalogued. In most, the alterations

just excised relevant frames. Some, like Zapruder, Nix, Muchmore and several others underwent

extensive alteration.

And just think, Dan Rather said he was on the west side of the underpass waiting for a "film drop".

Do you believe Rather or the Daniel film?

;-)

Jack

I don’t know where Dan Rather was, but I certainly don’t think the Daniel film proves he wasn’t where he said he was, as you seem to think

And since you seem so willing to accept the Daniel film when it comes to Dan Rather, why are you so unwilling to accept the Daniel film when I point out that it disproves Jean Hills claim about Martin not leaving Dealey Plaza right away and instead doing circles in the middle of Elm Street? That’s a contradiction.

There is no need for you to tell me WHAT I THINK.

Jack

Jack,

I didn't tell you "WHAT (you) THINK", I said what "you seem to think", given what you said about Dan Rather and the Daniel film.

Todd

[Jack White]

I would like to point out that the testimony of one of the officers (Hargis, I think) said

that HE PULLED OUT OF THE PROCESSION IMMEDIATELY AND MADE A U-TURN ON

ELM STREET, AND PARKED HIS BIKE BY THE SOUTH CURB NEAR MOORMAN AND HILL,

THEN RAN ACROSS THE STREET TO THE KNOLL, CAME BACK AND MADE ANOTHER

U-TURN AND THEN REJOINED THE MOTORCADE.

My question for the obstructionists: Can you point me to any film which shows this?

Also, other witnesses said AN OFFICER RAN HIS MOTORCYCLE UP THE HILL AND

THREW HIS BIKE DOWN TO LOOK OVER THE FENCE.

Can anyone point me to any films which show this?

Jack

No film footage Mr White but certainly still photography

Thanks. I am well aware of those still images and have had them for some 40 years or so.

I am referring to MOVIES.

Jack

Mr White

I’m sure you are more than aware that there are no movies that detail precisely what you describe (faked or otherwise). The Mark Bell film shows hints of what you outline (concerning Bobby Hargis parking next to Jean Hill and Mary Moorman) and the Wilma Bond photos document Clyde Haygood parked at the curb in front of the knoll (after unsuccessfully attempting to get his motorcycle up over the north curb – which I believe witnesses interpreted as him “trying” to drive up the knoll). The films and photos that you have been studying for 40+ years demonstrate no U-Turns, no circling, no wheel spins and no driving through fiery hoops.

I would also like to thank you for the condescending slant of your response. I understand fully, after reading your posts on the Education Forum for the last 2 years, that you consider this site somewhat of a personal fiefdom but may I respectfully remind you that it is a forum that many “non-members” read regularly for information (I myself only becoming a member yesterday). These individuals will have varying degrees of knowledge on the assassination. They, unlike you, may not have seen some of the photographs taken of Dealey Plaza in the aftermath of the shooting and I felt including it would give some context to your discussions of MOVIE alteration. It would have been as easy for you to ignore my attached photograph as it was to take it as a personal attack on your JFK research longevity and act in such a childish manner by giving me a spelling lesson on my first ever post. Thanks for the welcome.

Lee

Lee....

My apologies if I did something to offend you. I know of no "childish manner" in which I have acted. This website

is populated by many provocateurs and jerks who cause much wear and tear on an 83-year old. I have no idea

why you perceive that this forum is "my personal fiefdom". I find that quite amusing, since the contrary is true.

I do not recall any "condescending slant" in responding to you. If you perceive that, I apologize.

I have studied this baffling case for 45 years and it gets irritating when some come along disputing known facts

as if they have just discovered them.

And consider this...if you made a spelling error (?), what is wrong with correcting it? And about sarcasm, I do

recognize that when I see it, and have duly noted it.

Your humble servant,

Jack

Hello Jack

Thanks for the reply.

I think I've grown to know many of your thoughts and opinions of some "members" who post on this site and the impact they have on people genuinely attempting to answer some of the tough questions on the case. I used the term "fiefdom" because I am of the opinion that when there is a back-and-forth discussion taking place between two or more individuals on a contested topic those individuals sometimes lose all awareness that it is happening on a public platform, and because it's on a public platform I am of the strange opinion that you should try to be accommodating to new members, educate the casual observers and project a positive image of the group who will one day succeed in completely and unanimously bringing down in the minds of the public the house of cards that is the Warren Commission.

Unfortunately I believe some of the "attacks" of a personal nature that I have been privy to over the last two years by reading the postings as a guest undermines the credibility of the entire research community. So you are playing into the "provocateurs" hands by behaving and condoning others behaving in this way, are you not?

At the moment I don't buy Z-Film alteration (blobs and disappearing motorcycles do not convince me). But I don't KNOW that it wasn't done either.

However, on a personal level - I don't think it matters one way or the other whether it is one day proven that the Z-Film (or any other film) was altered, changed, distorted, manipulated or colored in. There is enough evidence in other areas that does it for me and if the public knew the full extent of what is today known (post ARRB) about Oswald it would more than likely be enough for them too.

As far as "disputing known facts" I don't recall disputing anything in my initial reply to you. I merely answered your question, there are no movies that depict what you suggest was told to you by Mary Ferrell and read in Horne's book. The condescension lay in you telling me you'd had the picture I'd posted for 40 years and thanking me for it. The spelling lesson lay in you typing "MOVIES" in capitals.

I don't always agree with your research or thoughts Jack, but I 100% admire the dedication and service you have put into trying to answer the questions we would like answers to. I just wish the members of the forum see through the folly of falling for very old tricks out of very old books.

Once again thanks for your reply

Best wishes

Lee

Thank you, Lee.

I appreciate your opinions, but I think you are "reading into" any of my messages things which are not there.

You seem to be an intelligent but overly sensitive person. I will try to remember that.

Welcoming new members is not in my job description. All who jump in here should hit the ground running

and not expect any preferential treatment or coddling. There are vicious people here who WILL CUT YOU NO

SLACK.

Feel free to disagree with me. That is your privilege. I am not always right.

But stay around long enough and you will find I am mostly right. On the Z film, there is NO DOUBT that I

am right...except from obstructionists with vested interests.

Thanks. (No offense intended.)

Jack

[Dean Hagerman]

I would like to point out that the testimony of one of the officers (Hargis, I think) said

that HE PULLED OUT OF THE PROCESSION IMMEDIATELY AND MADE A U-TURN ON

ELM STREET, AND PARKED HIS BIKE BY THE SOUTH CURB NEAR MOORMAN AND HILL,

THEN RAN ACROSS THE STREET TO THE KNOLL, CAME BACK AND MADE ANOTHER

U-TURN AND THEN REJOINED THE MOTORCADE.

My question for the obstructionists: Can you point me to any film which shows this?

Also, other witnesses said AN OFFICER RAN HIS MOTORCYCLE UP THE HILL AND

THREW HIS BIKE DOWN TO LOOK OVER THE FENCE.

Can anyone point me to any films which show this?

Jack

No film footage Mr White but certainly still photography

Thanks. I am well aware of those still images and have had them for some 40 years or so.

I am referring to MOVIES.

Jack

Mr White

I’m sure you are more than aware that there are no movies that detail precisely what you describe (faked or otherwise). The Mark Bell film shows hints of what you outline (concerning Bobby Hargis parking next to Jean Hill and Mary Moorman) and the Wilma Bond photos document Clyde Haygood parked at the curb in front of the knoll (after unsuccessfully attempting to get his motorcycle up over the north curb – which I believe witnesses interpreted as him “trying” to drive up the knoll). The films and photos that you have been studying for 40+ years demonstrate no U-Turns, no circling, no wheel spins and no driving through fiery hoops.

I would also like to thank you for the condescending slant of your response. I understand fully, after reading your posts on the Education Forum for the last 2 years, that you consider this site somewhat of a personal fiefdom but may I respectfully remind you that it is a forum that many “non-members” read regularly for information (I myself only becoming a member yesterday). These individuals will have varying degrees of knowledge on the assassination. They, unlike you, may not have seen some of the photographs taken of Dealey Plaza in the aftermath of the shooting and I felt including it would give some context to your discussions of MOVIE alteration. It would have been as easy for you to ignore my attached photograph as it was to take it as a personal attack on your JFK research longevity and act in such a childish manner by giving me a spelling lesson on my first ever post. Thanks for the welcome.

Lee

Lee....

My apologies if I did something to offend you. I know of no "childish manner" in which I have acted. This website

is populated by many provocateurs and jerks who cause much wear and tear on an 83-year old. I have no idea

why you perceive that this forum is "my personal fiefdom". I find that quite amusing, since the contrary is true.

I do not recall any "condescending slant" in responding to you. If you perceive that, I apologize.

I have studied this baffling case for 45 years and it gets irritating when some come along disputing known facts

as if they have just discovered them.

And consider this...if you made a spelling error (?), what is wrong with correcting it? And about sarcasm, I do

recognize that when I see it, and have duly noted it.

Your humble servant,

Jack

Hello Jack

Thanks for the reply.

I think I've grown to know many of your thoughts and opinions of some "members" who post on this site and the impact they have on people genuinely attempting to answer some of the tough questions on the case. I used the term "fiefdom" because I am of the opinion that when there is a back-and-forth discussion taking place between two or more individuals on a contested topic those individuals sometimes lose all awareness that it is happening on a public platform, and because it's on a public platform I am of the strange opinion that you should try to be accommodating to new members, educate the casual observers and project a positive image of the group who will one day succeed in completely and unanimously bringing down in the minds of the public the house of cards that is the Warren Commission.

Unfortunately I believe some of the "attacks" of a personal nature that I have been privy to over the last two years by reading the postings as a guest undermines the credibility of the entire research community. So you are playing into the "provocateurs" hands by behaving and condoning others behaving in this way, are you not?

At the moment I don't buy Z-Film alteration (blobs and disappearing motorcycles do not convince me). But I don't KNOW that it wasn't done either.

However, on a personal level - I don't think it matters one way or the other whether it is one day proven that the Z-Film (or any other film) was altered, changed, distorted, manipulated or colored in. There is enough evidence in other areas that does it for me and if the public knew the full extent of what is today known (post ARRB) about Oswald it would more than likely be enough for them too.

As far as "disputing known facts" I don't recall disputing anything in my initial reply to you. I merely answered your question, there are no movies that depict what you suggest was told to you by Mary Ferrell and read in Horne's book. The condescension lay in you telling me you'd had the picture I'd posted for 40 years and thanking me for it. The spelling lesson lay in you typing "MOVIES" in capitals.

I don't always agree with your research or thoughts Jack, but I 100% admire the dedication and service you have put into trying to answer the questions we would like answers to. I just wish the members of the forum see through the folly of falling for very old tricks out of very old books.

Once again thanks for your reply

Best wishes

Lee

Thank you, Lee.

I appreciate your opinions, but I think you are "reading into" any of my messages things which are not there.

You seem to be an intelligent but overly sensitive person. I will try to remember that.

Welcoming new members is not in my job description. All who jump in here should hit the ground running

and not expect any preferential treatment or coddling. There are vicious people here who WILL CUT YOU NO

SLACK.

Feel free to disagree with me. That is your privilege. I am not always right.

But stay around long enough and you will find I am mostly right. On the Z film, there is NO DOUBT that I

am right...except from obstructionists with vested interests.

Thanks. (No offense intended.)

Jack

I think the over-sensitivity comes from "new-member" nerves.

I get the passion you have for Zapruder alteration.

I have brought this up - key points that could suggest it has been diddled with - with some close friends who know nothing of the case and I get the same response every time. They look at me as if I'm mad. One of the points you make (with James Fetzer) is that this could convince the public of the massive cover-up reaching into many organizations and institutions. But I believe it's too hard a sell - I can't even convince myself of it let alone anyone else.

So on that note - what, in your opinion, is the big one, the one piece of evidence out of all you have collected, if you had to sell it to the American public tomorrow, that would buy the lay man into believing it is faked?

I will answer your question directed at Jack from my point of view, in my opinion if I as an alterationist had to choose one piece of evidence of Z-film alteration to sell to the lay man it would no doubt be the wide limo turn taken out of the film

Zappy never stopped filming, and we dont see the tell tale fading in and out that turning the camera on and off will show

I ask you this Lee, do you think Zappy stopped filming and then started back up again?

Or do you think the embarrasing wide turn that Greer made almost into the side street in front of the TSBD as seen by Roy Truly was taken out of the Z-film in order to cover up SS incompetence?

I could go on and on but if I had to choose one thing it would be the limo turn taken out

Dean

Edited January 13, 2010 by Dean Hagerman

[Jack White]

I would like to point out that the testimony of one of the officers (Hargis, I think) said

that HE PULLED OUT OF THE PROCESSION IMMEDIATELY AND MADE A U-TURN ON

ELM STREET, AND PARKED HIS BIKE BY THE SOUTH CURB NEAR MOORMAN AND HILL,

THEN RAN ACROSS THE STREET TO THE KNOLL, CAME BACK AND MADE ANOTHER

U-TURN AND THEN REJOINED THE MOTORCADE.

My question for the obstructionists: Can you point me to any film which shows this?

Also, other witnesses said AN OFFICER RAN HIS MOTORCYCLE UP THE HILL AND

THREW HIS BIKE DOWN TO LOOK OVER THE FENCE.

Can anyone point me to any films which show this?

Jack

No film footage Mr White but certainly still photography

Thanks. I am well aware of those still images and have had them for some 40 years or so.

I am referring to MOVIES.

Jack

Mr White

I’m sure you are more than aware that there are no movies that detail precisely what you describe (faked or otherwise). The Mark Bell film shows hints of what you outline (concerning Bobby Hargis parking next to Jean Hill and Mary Moorman) and the Wilma Bond photos document Clyde Haygood parked at the curb in front of the knoll (after unsuccessfully attempting to get his motorcycle up over the north curb – which I believe witnesses interpreted as him “trying” to drive up the knoll). The films and photos that you have been studying for 40+ years demonstrate no U-Turns, no circling, no wheel spins and no driving through fiery hoops.

I would also like to thank you for the condescending slant of your response. I understand fully, after reading your posts on the Education Forum for the last 2 years, that you consider this site somewhat of a personal fiefdom but may I respectfully remind you that it is a forum that many “non-members” read regularly for information (I myself only becoming a member yesterday). These individuals will have varying degrees of knowledge on the assassination. They, unlike you, may not have seen some of the photographs taken of Dealey Plaza in the aftermath of the shooting and I felt including it would give some context to your discussions of MOVIE alteration. It would have been as easy for you to ignore my attached photograph as it was to take it as a personal attack on your JFK research longevity and act in such a childish manner by giving me a spelling lesson on my first ever post. Thanks for the welcome.

Lee

Lee....

My apologies if I did something to offend you. I know of no "childish manner" in which I have acted. This website

is populated by many provocateurs and jerks who cause much wear and tear on an 83-year old. I have no idea

why you perceive that this forum is "my personal fiefdom". I find that quite amusing, since the contrary is true.

I do not recall any "condescending slant" in responding to you. If you perceive that, I apologize.

I have studied this baffling case for 45 years and it gets irritating when some come along disputing known facts

as if they have just discovered them.

And consider this...if you made a spelling error (?), what is wrong with correcting it? And about sarcasm, I do

recognize that when I see it, and have duly noted it.

Your humble servant,

Jack

Hello Jack

Thanks for the reply.

I think I've grown to know many of your thoughts and opinions of some "members" who post on this site and the impact they have on people genuinely attempting to answer some of the tough questions on the case. I used the term "fiefdom" because I am of the opinion that when there is a back-and-forth discussion taking place between two or more individuals on a contested topic those individuals sometimes lose all awareness that it is happening on a public platform, and because it's on a public platform I am of the strange opinion that you should try to be accommodating to new members, educate the casual observers and project a positive image of the group who will one day succeed in completely and unanimously bringing down in the minds of the public the house of cards that is the Warren Commission.

Unfortunately I believe some of the "attacks" of a personal nature that I have been privy to over the last two years by reading the postings as a guest undermines the credibility of the entire research community. So you are playing into the "provocateurs" hands by behaving and condoning others behaving in this way, are you not?

At the moment I don't buy Z-Film alteration (blobs and disappearing motorcycles do not convince me). But I don't KNOW that it wasn't done either.

However, on a personal level - I don't think it matters one way or the other whether it is one day proven that the Z-Film (or any other film) was altered, changed, distorted, manipulated or colored in. There is enough evidence in other areas that does it for me and if the public knew the full extent of what is today known (post ARRB) about Oswald it would more than likely be enough for them too.

As far as "disputing known facts" I don't recall disputing anything in my initial reply to you. I merely answered your question, there are no movies that depict what you suggest was told to you by Mary Ferrell and read in Horne's book. The condescension lay in you telling me you'd had the picture I'd posted for 40 years and thanking me for it. The spelling lesson lay in you typing "MOVIES" in capitals.

I don't always agree with your research or thoughts Jack, but I 100% admire the dedication and service you have put into trying to answer the questions we would like answers to. I just wish the members of the forum see through the folly of falling for very old tricks out of very old books.

Once again thanks for your reply

Best wishes

Lee

Thank you, Lee.

I appreciate your opinions, but I think you are "reading into" any of my messages things which are not there.

You seem to be an intelligent but overly sensitive person. I will try to remember that.

Welcoming new members is not in my job description. All who jump in here should hit the ground running

and not expect any preferential treatment or coddling. There are vicious people here who WILL CUT YOU NO

SLACK.

Feel free to disagree with me. That is your privilege. I am not always right.

But stay around long enough and you will find I am mostly right. On the Z film, there is NO DOUBT that I

am right...except from obstructionists with vested interests.

Thanks. (No offense intended.)

Jack

I think the over-sensitivity comes from "new-member" nerves.

I get the passion you have for Zapruder alteration.

I have brought this up - key points that could suggest it has been diddled with - with some close friends who know nothing of the case and I get the same response every time. They look at me as if I'm mad. One of the points you make (with James Fetzer) is that this could convince the public of the massive cover-up reaching into many organizations and institutions. But I believe it's too hard a sell - I can't even convince myself of it let alone anyone else.

So on that note - what, in your opinion, is the big one, the one piece of evidence out of all you have collected, if you had to sell it to the American public tomorrow, that would buy the lay man into believing it is faked?

There is NO ONE SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE, but I will list five easily understood proofs:

1. Doug Horne's discovery of fakery in the film provenance at Hawkeyeworks.

2. The redaction of the limo stop on Elm.

3. The removal of the early Z frames showing the wide turn

4. The redaction of Officer Chaney speeding forward to the Curry car.

5. Moorman/Hill on the grass instead of in the street.

I hope you find this satisfactory. I cannot pick JUST ONE, but perhaps the Horne

discovery, PROVED BY DOCUMENTATION, is the most solid. I could give you a

list of 20, but these five are sufficient.

Jack

[David Lifton]

Craig Lamson:

I notice the clear difference between your argument and that of Gary Mack. Gary was claiming that test films were ALREADY shot; ergo, no need to shoot new test films. Now that sounded promising, did it not? But here we are, and your argument is quite different.

Your argument: the test films are useless because they were not shot on a full sun day.

Now which is it?

Rollie Zavada recognized that if enough light was blasted through the lens, AND it was on full zoom, one might get full penetration of the inter sprocket area. Apparently, he got it on one frame with the red truck.

But that's not what the Zapruder film frames show--just about every single frame (read that again, Mr. Lamson, "every single frame") is "full flush left" and many of them (if not just about all of them) are "BEYOND full full left."

Now what are we to make of that?

What is the problem here--my knowledge of photography, or your lack of logic?

This is not about my ignorance of the interplay of these various factors, but rather your unwillingness to face the fact that there is good reason to suspect that what is called the "original Zapruder film" was not the film made by Abraham Zapruder, but rather an optically edited copy made on an optical printer, and then reduction printed to Kodachrome II.

There is enough difference in "image content" (car stop, wounds that are on JFK's head, but were not seen 4 minutes later at Parkland, etc.) to suspect optical forgery. And one simple way to see if that is in fact the case is this matter of full flush left.

An accurate test would include BOTH full zoom setting of the lens AS WELL AS the lighting conditions on 11/22/63.

You're setting up a straw man. I never suggested that the lighting conditions should not be duplicated. If the FBI test films were not shot on a full sun day, then new test films would have to be shot. (But please don't reason circularly and tell me that because the U-Tube videos are of such poor quality, that means the test films were not shot on a full sun day. Apparently, Gary Mack believed those test films were fine, thankyou. Now maybe he is wrong; maybe he didn't bother to look up the weather on that day--and candidly, I have not done so.) Have you concluded it was not a sunny day because the U-tube videos are so lousy? Or because you checked with the records kept by the U.S.Weather Bureau. (That would make a difference, I hope you know).

So let's dispense with the straw man argument(s), and try to reign in your compulsion to display your erudition when it comes to lenses and light.

The simple question is this: when the Zapruder camera is used, and when lens is set at full zoom, and when the light is at a level comparable to 11/22/63, will the camera produce--repeatedly, frame after frame--a sequence of frames that are full flush left, and in fact "beyond full flush left"--such as we see on the frames from the supposedly "original Zapruder film"?

That's the test that must be conducted--and ought to have been conducted--before the taxpayers forked over $16 million for what may well be a forgery, an optically edited film that is supposedly "camera original."

Sure, I know, Lamson. You will now respond to this post with another effusion of words, designed to advertise your erudition, but it will be lacking in logic, and steeped in denial.

You seem not to comprehend that your prediction(s) about what such a test will show are not equivalent to actually conducting the test and examining the results.

At the track, do you bet on horses, and then go and try to collect at the betting window, BEFORE the race is run?

Are you so ego-centric that you genuinely believe that your knowledge (and predictions) about "how things work" are a substitute for actually conducting the appropriate test(s)?

And yes, I'd love to conduct an "indoor test" with the camera (at full zoom) facing a clock, and the minute hand going round and round--and then increasing the light levels, a notch at a time, to see just when (and if) full flush penetration occurs. And when (and if) "beyond full flush" is even possible.

Eventually, with enough light blasting through, it will happen. But when will that be, Lamson--after the camera has melted??

We're dealing with the Zapruder camera--this is not the test of a laser weapon. (Do you understand?)

So please: stop erecting straw men, and stop using your knowledge of photography to invent excuses to avoid proper testing.

And one other thing: should you attend the test, do bring some heavy dark goggles, and be sure to wear them during the test. I know, you'd prefer not to because you may look like a character in a Peanuts cartoon, but I'm afraid you may need the protection, since those may well be the light levels that are going to be needed before "beyond full flush left" penetration is achieved.

DSL

1/13/2010; 1 AM

Los Angeles, CA

[John Simkin]

With all due respect, Duncan, why don't these people post themselves if they expect to have a voice in this forum? Otherwise, it just looks as though you are being used by apologists to post their excuses.

David Von Pein is banned from this forum, Pamela, and therefore could not post the information here.

I asked Gary for permission to post his thoughts as relayed to Mr Von Pein. I thought everyone, especially alterationists, would be interested in reading and considering the information furbished by him.

The forum used to enforce a rule that NO BANNED MEMBER can use a surrogate to post

messages. What happened to that rule? Duane Daman was banished by Burton, and I

was admonished for posting something from Duane. Why doe the same not apply to

VonPain?

Jack

Jack, it is my understanding that rule still applies. If von Pain was banned here, I will delete all of his forwarded messages, in line with our fearless leader Burton. I was unaware he was ever here as a member. It was before my joining, perhaps. Just demonstrate it to be so, and anyone's posts of his messages, no matter who posted them, will be deleted....as per Burton.

David Von Pein has never been a member of this Forum. If I remember rightly, members have claimed that he was using a false name on the Forum. That is why we brought in the photograph as avatar rule. At the time, it was a common complaint from our more paranoid members that posters were not who they said they were.

It also should be made clear that members are not banned but put on moderation. Evan never banned Duane Daman. Moderators do not have that power. Nor do they have the power to delete messages. What they can do is to make them invisible so that a decision can be made by Andy or myself.

[Pat Speer]

With all due respect, Duncan, why don't these people post themselves if they expect to have a voice in this forum? Otherwise, it just looks as though you are being used by apologists to post their excuses.

David Von Pein is banned from this forum, Pamela, and therefore could not post the information here.

I asked Gary for permission to post his thoughts as relayed to Mr Von Pein. I thought everyone, especially alterationists, would be interested in reading and considering the information furbished by him.

The forum used to enforce a rule that NO BANNED MEMBER can use a surrogate to post

messages. What happened to that rule? Duane Daman was banished by Burton, and I

was admonished for posting something from Duane. Why doe the same not apply to

VonPain?

Jack

Jack, it is my understanding that rule still applies. If von Pain was banned here, I will delete all of his forwarded messages, in line with our fearless leader Burton. I was unaware he was ever here as a member. It was before my joining, perhaps. Just demonstrate it to be so, and anyone's posts of his messages, no matter who posted them, will be deleted....as per Burton.

David Von Pein has never been a member of this Forum. If I remember rightly, members have claimed that he was using a false name on the Forum. That is why we brought in the photograph as avatar rule. At the time, it was a common complaint from our more paranoid members that posters were not who they said they were.

It also should be made clear that members are not banned but put on moderation. Evan never banned Duane Daman. Moderators do not have that power. Nor do they have the power to delete messages. What they can do is to make them invisible so that a decision can be made by Andy or myself.

John, I've skirmished with Von Pein on several different forums, and am almost positive he was a member of this forum for a few days. As I recall, he wouldn't provide a photo, and was given the heave-ho.

[John Simkin]

John, I've skirmished with Von Pein on several different forums, and am almost positive he was a member of this forum for a few days. As I recall, he wouldn't provide a photo, and was given the heave-ho.

If he was, he was registered under a false name.

[Jack White]

However...it is UNKNOWN whether in the B&H camera Lamson's demonstration would be a factor.

Jack

Jack, it MUST be a factor. Sharpening and changes in the width of the vignette as the F-Stop decreases in size is a basic photographic fact, it is not subject to speculation. That the vignette will change on B&H wth changes in F-Stop is a given. A comparison of images taken at two different setting is meaningless.

The area of lens coverage IN ZAPRUDER'S CAMERA at various apertures is not known.

Jack

[Jack White]

I would like to point out that the testimony of one of the officers (Hargis, I think) said

that HE PULLED OUT OF THE PROCESSION IMMEDIATELY AND MADE A U-TURN ON

ELM STREET, AND PARKED HIS BIKE BY THE SOUTH CURB NEAR MOORMAN AND HILL,

THEN RAN ACROSS THE STREET TO THE KNOLL, CAME BACK AND MADE ANOTHER

U-TURN AND THEN REJOINED THE MOTORCADE.

My question for the obstructionists: Can you point me to any film which shows this?

Also, other witnesses said AN OFFICER RAN HIS MOTORCYCLE UP THE HILL AND

THREW HIS BIKE DOWN TO LOOK OVER THE FENCE.

Can anyone point me to any films which show this?

Jack

Oy Vey, Jack. Hargis and his bike are shown in the Bell film, here:

He pulled his bike to the side. Later in the film you can see Haygood's bike on the opposite side. The Couch film also shows Haygood's bike. He left it at the base of the hill. Are you now claiming the Couch film, shown on TV within hours of the assassination, is a fake? If so, is there any assassination film you know of that is, in your opinion, not a fake?

According to what I read (and was told by Mary Ferrell), he circled around in the street.

I do not believe what is shown in ANY DP FILM. They have all had things removed and/or added.

Jack

So which is it, Jack, a "U turn" or "circling around in the street? The two are not the same.

Anyway, the ONLY reference I'm aware of for either is for an officer "circling around in the street", and that comes from Jean Hill's book - but she's not talking about Hargis, she's talking about Martin (Hargis's partner and the cop she was cheating on her husband with , who she was there to see, and whom she gives a ficticious name in her book), but the films and photos show that Martin never did that either.

Films and photos show? You gotta be kidding!

Jack

So tell me Jack, do you think the Paschall, Bell and Daniel films are altered?

The multiple alterations to DP films have never been adequately catalogued. In most, the alterations

just excised relevant frames. Some, like Zapruder, Nix, Muchmore and several others underwent

extensive alteration.

And just think, Dan Rather said he was on the west side of the underpass waiting for a "film drop".

Do you believe Rather or the Daniel film?

;-)

Jack

I don’t know where Dan Rather was, but I certainly don’t think the Daniel film proves he wasn’t where he said he was, as you seem to think

And since you seem so willing to accept the Daniel film when it comes to Dan Rather, why are you so unwilling to accept the Daniel film when I point out that it disproves Jean Hills claim about Martin not leaving Dealey Plaza right away and instead doing circles in the middle of Elm Street? That’s a contradiction.

You do not know where Danny said he was? End of discussion.

And why do you think I said anything about Jean Hill?

What I said is that many films were tampered with but we do not know which ones and to what extent.

Jack

[Todd W. Vaughan]

I would like to point out that the testimony of one of the officers (Hargis, I think) said

that HE PULLED OUT OF THE PROCESSION IMMEDIATELY AND MADE A U-TURN ON

ELM STREET, AND PARKED HIS BIKE BY THE SOUTH CURB NEAR MOORMAN AND HILL,

THEN RAN ACROSS THE STREET TO THE KNOLL, CAME BACK AND MADE ANOTHER

U-TURN AND THEN REJOINED THE MOTORCADE.

My question for the obstructionists: Can you point me to any film which shows this?

Also, other witnesses said AN OFFICER RAN HIS MOTORCYCLE UP THE HILL AND

THREW HIS BIKE DOWN TO LOOK OVER THE FENCE.

Can anyone point me to any films which show this?

Jack

Oy Vey, Jack. Hargis and his bike are shown in the Bell film, here:

He pulled his bike to the side. Later in the film you can see Haygood's bike on the opposite side. The Couch film also shows Haygood's bike. He left it at the base of the hill. Are you now claiming the Couch film, shown on TV within hours of the assassination, is a fake? If so, is there any assassination film you know of that is, in your opinion, not a fake?

According to what I read (and was told by Mary Ferrell), he circled around in the street.

I do not believe what is shown in ANY DP FILM. They have all had things removed and/or added.

Jack

So which is it, Jack, a "U turn" or "circling around in the street? The two are not the same.

Anyway, the ONLY reference I'm aware of for either is for an officer "circling around in the street", and that comes from Jean Hill's book - but she's not talking about Hargis, she's talking about Martin (Hargis's partner and the cop she was cheating on her husband with , who she was there to see, and whom she gives a ficticious name in her book), but the films and photos show that Martin never did that either.

Films and photos show? You gotta be kidding!

Jack

So tell me Jack, do you think the Paschall, Bell and Daniel films are altered?

The multiple alterations to DP films have never been adequately catalogued. In most, the alterations

just excised relevant frames. Some, like Zapruder, Nix, Muchmore and several others underwent

extensive alteration.

And just think, Dan Rather said he was on the west side of the underpass waiting for a "film drop".

Do you believe Rather or the Daniel film?

;-)

Jack

I don’t know where Dan Rather was, but I certainly don’t think the Daniel film proves he wasn’t where he said he was, as you seem to think

And since you seem so willing to accept the Daniel film when it comes to Dan Rather, why are you so unwilling to accept the Daniel film when I point out that it disproves Jean Hills claim about Martin not leaving Dealey Plaza right away and instead doing circles in the middle of Elm Street? That’s a contradiction.

You do not know where Danny said he was? End of discussion.

And why do you think I said anything about Jean Hill?

What I said is that many films were tampered with but we do not know which ones and to what extent.

Jack

I didn't say that I didn’t know where Dan Rather SAID he was. What I said was that “I don’t KNOW where Dan Rather was…”, Are you able to understand the difference?

I likewise didn't say that you said anything about Jean Hill. Try going back and reading the thread.

[Pamela Brown]

Ironically, it seems if we can get on the same page in regards to the provenance of the Z-films, it will then become evident whether we have been subjected to a giant shell-game or not. And, if that proves to be the case, that opens the door to mischief and malevolent alteration of the films themselves.

So, rather than taking sides and spinning our wheels, why not document as much as possible what we know about how many of these films there are and what happened to them.